Date: 27/1/07
Author: MICHAEL HILL
Source: Associated Press

TROY, N.Y. -- It might look bad: a young man picked up on a disorderly charge gets a bloody face while in police custody.

Except in this case, a police recording shows him shouting, swearing and bloodying himself by banging his head on a glass divider at the station.

The man's actions _ from police cruiser to station house _ were caught on video. Troy police officer Bob Fitzgerald was testing a wearable camera _ an unobtrusive unit with a little lens that clips to his shirt front. The prototype records what the officer on the street sees and hears, be it a traffic stop or a drug raid.

While it might bring to mind Big Brother, police and even some civil rights advocates see potential benefits in the on-the-beat recordings being tested in this Hudson River city. The videos give officers yet another incentive to follow the rules, they say. And Fitzgerald notes that wearable cameras defend against bogus complaints of harassment or bad police work.

"Like it or not, everyone else on the street has one," Fitzgerald said. "They're videotaping you."

People have been pointing video cameras at police for decades, often when they do something wrong. The most famous case remains the 1991 beating of Rodney King along a Los Angeles highway. But the amateur videos have become far more common now in the age of cell phone cameras and file-sharing sites like YouTube.

Police also routinely record themselves with cameras mounted inside police cruisers. There were more than 17,500 cameras in state police vehicles by 2004, according to a study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police commissioned by the Department of Justice.

While those in-car cameras have gotten some officers in trouble, i.e., getting caught swearing at combative citizens, they also provide invaluable evidence. Police say the recordings protect them in the vast majority of cases where they follow the book.

John Firman, director of research for the chiefs' association, said initial resistance among police to recording their working moments melted as videos began supporting officers' version of events.

"Video evidence is really captivating law enforcement right now, in all ways," he said.

But in-car cameras miss action outside the fixed frame. In contrast, the camera Fitzgerald wears records whatever is straight ahead of him, providing an officer's-eye view of the action. When Fitzgerald wore his camera for a pre-dawn drug raid, he created a video that followed his point-of-view as he ran through the busted door, down the hall and into the apartment.

Fitzgerald said the video demonstrates that protocols were followed during the raid, so he's inoculated against any false allegations of abuse.

"Most people want to get out of the charges," Fitzgerald said, "and the easiest way to get out of the charges is to say 'Police brutality."'

Fitzgerald's camera is not hidden, but it's easy to miss. The lens is no bigger than what's found on a pocket camera. The power and playback unit attaches discreetly to his belt. He can turn it on and off, but he cannot edit the video.

Troy's SWAT team ordered two of the units made by ActionDVR. The camera, which starts at $995, is essentially a compact video camera made extra-rugged for people apt to bang through doors, jump out of planes or work in miserable weather. Troy police initially will use it for SWAT training, but it could be used for raids and patrols down the road.

Neither Firman nor staff at the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs were aware of any police agencies using wearable cameras. However, the Washington County Sheriff's Department near the Vermont border is evaluating it for use on patrols and at the jail. Also, the U.S. Coast Guard in San Diego has begun evaluating ActionDVR's cameras for use on patrols and training, said Lt. Michael Frawley.

New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman said such systems can be beneficial as a check to make sure police follow the rules. In fact, the NYCLU advocates video recording police interrogations for the same reason.

But she said there should be safeguards against police being able to turn the device off to mask improper behavior. And she said there should be policies to protect the privacy of innocent people recorded on video.

"What happens to the data when there is no need for it?" Lieberman asked.

This article may be reproduced as long as the source Footprint Home Security is provided as a link.

Back to Free Expert Advice

Back to Footprint Home Security